What do you think of the new location of the "Main Menu"

  • mindfullsilence
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 854

Post 3+ Months Ago

A couple days ago the main menu tab at the top of ozzu moved from the right side to the left side, and now expands upwards instead of downwards. Just wondering what everyones opinion was about the new location?

Personally, I think the location might be better, but the fact that everything was shrunk down to fit over the logo makes it somewhat hard to read. Any thoughts?
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13502
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

I can deal with the reduced size. Eventually I will have the positions of everything memorized and it will not matter as much.

I like that it opens up into an area to cover something that doesn't lack an alternative navigation point. I sometimes open the menu to open the PM or UCP window in another tab and then continue using the existing window. The old menu used to get in my way unless I closed it.

I kinda miss having the menu/sidebar items on the same side. I guess I'll have to rewire my brain to consider the right side of the site is all navigation and the left side as content and menu though.
  • UPSGuy
  • Lurker ಠ_ಠ
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2733
  • Loc: Nashville, TN

Post 3+ Months Ago

A group of us turmoiled together and collaborated ideas practically real-time while BWM implemented the new position and behavior. We were all pretty satisfied with what he gave us as a result. I feel that it has an appropriate balance of necessity and functionality.
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5149
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

I like the size and position. The fonts are standard sizes, not unusually small. I'm not having any trouble reading it.

Honestly, I didn't use it much before, but I find myself using it more since the change. I think a lot of that has to do with its position on the left instead of the right.
  • mk27
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 334

Post 3+ Months Ago

It doesn't make any difference to me except the new smaller set size means if you are like me, using a minimum 22 point font, the menu is now completely unreadable (also, unfortunately, I cannot use an attachment here or even post a link to a screenshot I uploaded somewhere else, but believe me, all the text is overlapped and unreadable).

I have had this debate before and recognize it is pointless; this is a somewhat acceptable practice -- while most web sites/forums do not have that problem (that is, they do not enforce small fonts within divs; altho the fonts may be set small, they usually remain legible at 22 pts. That is most sites.), many do, and if it means more work, those responsible will just say, "Oh well, a lot of other people do it this way so it is fine".

I actually have better than 20/20 vision (and I want to keep it that way, which is why I use a 22pt minimum; I never get eye strain anymore and I'm positive that is why!). I have made the argument before that this is grossly unfair to people who do not have perfect vision and must use a large minimum font. The usual response is that those people can use zoom, which if you fool around with your browser's zoom a little you will realize just how sh___ty that attitude is.

But it does not matter much to me and I've come to recognize this is just a human nature thing; despite rhetoric to the contrary programmers are not here to answer to your needs or desires, they answer to their own, and if they are lucky, there are enough people exactly like them to make them successful. No one is going to cater outside of that box, generally speaking. Don't expect anything different here or anywhere...

ps. please don't mistake this for anything like a "guilt trip" :shock:
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13502
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

Just out of curiosity, who here is left-handed and who is right-handed ?

// Edit -- I'm left-handed, and the right side for navigation seems more natural to me. I'm wondering if it's the opposite for right-handed people.
  • UPSGuy
  • Lurker ಠ_ಠ
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2733
  • Loc: Nashville, TN

Post 3+ Months Ago

Southpaw.
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8740
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

joebert wrote:
I'm wondering if it's the opposite for right-handed people.


It is for me. I am right handed and like nav bar on the left...although it's not a big deal for me. Really made no difference where it went, i just think it looks better on the left but maybe that's because typically you'll see menu buttons like that on the left on most sites.
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5149
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

I grew up in the western hemishpere and read from left to right. I have no idea what handedness has to do with anything. I also have astigmatism and still have no trouble reading ANY text anywhere on this site.

I find some of these comments bizzare.
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13502
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
I have no idea what handedness has to do with anything.


My thought is that left-brain dominant people could be likely to prefer elements of control on one side, and vice-versa.
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5149
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

joebert wrote:
My thought is that left-brain dominant people could be likely to prefer elements of control on one side, and vice-versa.


That's very interesting to me. I've never heard this postulated. This deserves more study.
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9086
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

I am right handed and actually do not mind the main menu on the left side now. Took a few days to get used to, but I am already used to it.

With regards to fixed text size and zooming. Main reason I use px sizes vs pt sizes (which usually makes it so that you cannot change the text size through the browser) is because it usually breaks the design as well. With the zoom feature which I just tested again in both IE and Firefox, to me that seems like a completely acceptable method if you need things to be larger. I just zoomed in to 150% and on my screen the design is completely intact and the sizes of all the text is much, much larger. I do not see why zooming in and leaving it set at that zoom level is something you cannot do (or don't like to do)? For me I would think this would be a good solution for people who need larger texts and also has the benefit of not breaking website designs that depend on fixed areas (where the text cannot bust out of).
  • mk27
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 334

Post 3+ Months Ago

I'm right handed, but I use the mouse with my left (altho I have never been bothered about where a menu is anyway).

"Upload attachment" is back today (thanks joebert).

digitalMedia wrote:
I also have astigmatism and still have no trouble reading ANY text anywhere on this site. I find some of these comments bizzare.


I think it was just me, and I am not everyone, but neither is DM, and it is dismissive to say "I don't have a problem, therefore there is no problem". That is like a little kid finding the world momentarily too complicated and squeezing their eyes shut and putting their hands over their ears because what you mean is "I'm not interested in dealing with your problem" -- fine, but don't be a politician and pretend that it is solved then. Admit you just don't care, it is not as if this were a life and death issue.

My point about bringing this up is that you are web designers, and AFAICT, most sites actually do respect the user's option to set a minimum font. I started out using 16 or 18 and gradually realized I still get a 150+ characters on a line on a 1680 width screen using 22pt. All my apps, everything is 22, that's how I like it, and I reckon it should be something left up to the discretion of the users and not enforced by the designer. I understand when working on a page sometimes little tiny insignificant details can seem totally crucial to your aesthetic goals, but really, what does it matter what size a drop down menu is??!? Why not just set small fonts AND NOT the div size -- then for people who do not set their font, the menu will appear the size you want, and for people who do, it will be large enough not to create this overlap?

Basically, IMO this is a classic bad programming practice: you are putting your own aesthetic desires ahead of a more pragmatic reality: in doing so, you REDUCE the flexability that otherwise would be available to the user. You are (pointlessly) taking choices away. As I said FYI, most sites do not have this problem at all, but admittedly many do. To be honest, to me it just screams: bad, lazy, or slightly naive programmer. You can (and should be able to) get everything the way you want, using your brain a little with the numbers, accepting certain limits, and not have to resort to this thing with the impossible font spacing. Otherwise, you are just being lazy or you've lost sight of what should be your priorities: you are on the wrong side of an issue, unless you want to pretend the screenshot here doesn't exist or doesn't matter to you because you can't satisfy everyone (on this you could, but you've chosen not to).

Anyway, I feel free to be a little critical because otherwise Ozzu is very nice, functional, with character, and that menu is the only thing I've noticed where "the problem" is so noticable. So it just seems to me the people responsible for everything else would be smarter than this.

Bigwebmaster wrote:
With the zoom feature which I just tested again in both IE and Firefox, to me that seems like a completely acceptable method if you need things to be larger. I just zoomed in to 150% and on my screen the design is completely intact and the sizes of all the text is much, much larger. I do not see why zooming in and leaving it set at that zoom level is something you cannot do (or don't like to do)? For me I would think this would be a good solution for people who need larger texts and also has the benefit of not breaking website designs that depend on fixed areas (where the text cannot bust out of).


Once again: most sites do not have this problem and you have obviously misled yourself into believing you do it just like everyone else as far as the fixed areas go. I use the 22 all the time, I'm being honest, it is fine 90%+ of the time. The zoom is *not* a good option, images, etc, look horrible zoomed AND I DON'T NEED OR WANT THE PAGE ZOOMED. I just want to set my font sizes. I am not going to change my policy and I presume you are not going to change yours, I just wanted to point this out in case you are unaware. So now you are aware and if you are still comfortable with that, that is your choice. Generally, when I hit a link where this problem is pronounced, I don't go and change my preferences so I can read the page unless I really, really need to. I just close the page.

I have stubborn anti-user tendancies too, like I redirect IE6 to a page that says upgrade your browser or go home, rather than bothering to try and accomodate IE6 users*. So I'm being slightly hypocritical or self-interested. Again, I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just bringing this to your attention, and since I am the complaining user you can say whatever you want, make any kind of excuse, etc, the complaint will not change. That's why I'm honest with IE6: I don't want to deal with your problem, too bad.

* what's interesting is I got positive feedback: someone wrote me and thanked me, saying they were not aware that IE6 was a problem and that many things are better since they took my advice and upgraded so they could view the page.
Attachments:
ozzumenu.jpg
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9086
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

I appreciate your point of view and never assumed this was how other websites did this. I have always been very stubburn for some reason when it comes to this issue.

The thing is, for ozzu and this situation if I were to allow the div to expand like you mention what would happen is that the div would start covering google ads which is against their TOS. You cannot have menus or anything overlaying on top of any Google Ad.

The only thing I could do is allow a little comfort room in the menu for the fonts to be expanded. I have not decided yet if I will do that.

Per your screenshot at least it looks like the most important links are okay there.
  • mk27
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 334

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bigwebmaster wrote:
The thing is, for ozzu and this situation if I were to allow the div to expand like you mention what would happen is that the div would start covering google ads which is against their TOS. You cannot have menus or anything overlaying on top of any Google Ad.


Ah! Yeah, that would be hard to get around. So I can at least have more respect for your motives now :) Altho myself, I would have moved the google ads up, so the menu is below them, in which case it would not be restricted.

Like I said, not really a life or death issue. More of a personal integrity thing, which is largely subjective :lol:
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9086
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

I increased the horizontal spacing slightly which should allow for more expansion of the fonts. For the most part it shouldn't be a too noticable change for members who do not change fonts. The text will likely be cut off on the last row, but text shouldn't be overlapping at least at size 22. Let me know if this makes things better.

Make sure you clear your cache or hard refresh.
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13502
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

I know a few items such as the login/logout links aren't going to work because they depend on session ids being inserted on every page, but most of the things in the menu can be inserted into the sidebars "favorite links" section on top.

Here's a screen shot of Opera with the minimum font-size set to a ridiculous 32px.

Attachments:
32px.jpg
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5149
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

mk27 wrote:
I think it was just me, and I am not everyone, but neither is DM, and it is dismissive to say "I don't have a problem, therefore there is no problem". That is like a little kid finding the world momentarily too complicated and squeezing their eyes shut and putting their hands over their ears because what you mean is "I'm not interested in dealing with your problem" -- fine, but don't be a politician and pretend that it is solved then. Admit you just don't care, it is not as if this were a life and death issue.


I'm sorry, but you're completely off-base here. You can arrogantly make whatever assumptions you'd like (e.g. I don't care or am behaving like a child having a tantrum). You're wrong. I've spent the last 15 years of my life studying information delivery and interactivity. I have earned the respect of everyone I've ever worked with - except maybe ATNO.

In fact, I do quite a bit of work for my church, several non-profits and professionally for web-applications with very broad user bases. In all cases, senior citizens and visually impared people are a very deep concern. I've never run into any individual who required 22pt font for their own comfort. Standard print on paper sizes are far from that for the vast majority of typefaces.

I find your assertion to be stupid and your rhetorical premise to be unsupported.
  • ATNO/TW
  • Super Moderator
  • Super Moderator
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 23456
  • Loc: Woodbridge VA

Post 3+ Months Ago

digitalMedia wrote:
I have earned the respect of everyone I've ever worked with - except maybe ATNO.


??? Tell me you're kidding...
  • mk27
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 334

Post 3+ Months Ago

digitalMedia wrote:
You can arrogantly make whatever assumptions you'd like (e.g. I don't care or am behaving like a child having a tantrum). You're wrong.


That flies in both directions! Anyway, I wasn't trying to offend you, I was just pointing out that I like to use a 22pt font, and then you seem to be telling me I shouldn't do what I want, or that you are only going to take someone seriously if they agree 100% with you, and then you throw some anecdotal "evidence" in to support your prejudices.

If you think everything is hunky-dory, great, you said it. But when someone else turns around and says that is not my experience, who are you to tell them how they must feel, etc?

Bigwebmaster wrote:
I increased the horizontal spacing slightly which should allow for more expansion of the fonts. For the most part it shouldn't be a too noticable change for members who do not change fonts. The text will likely be cut off on the last row, but text shouldn't be overlapping at least at size 22. Let me know if this makes things better.


It still overlaps but it is not as bad, mostly usable I think. Anyway, I was worried this would push someone's button because, of course, it involves an assertion about how you do your work. But it's not my purpose, please understand, to be upsetting. I am not being irrational or offbase just to start an argument, or because I am a negative person who wants to pick fault with something that deserves praise (ie, Ozzu, which is mostly great). AFAICT this is "constructive criticism"; each individual is free to deal with it how they please.

Peace! :roll:
  • UPSGuy
  • Lurker ಠ_ಠ
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2733
  • Loc: Nashville, TN

Post 3+ Months Ago

I'm amazed that you've managed to conjure up a stand-off with one of the most well-intentioned member I can think of. Do you subscribe to conspiracy theories or ever get feelings of entrapment?
  • mk27
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 334

Post 3+ Months Ago

UPSGuy wrote:
I'm amazed that you've managed to conjure up a stand-off with one of the most well-intentioned member I can think of. Do you subscribe to conspiracy theories or ever get feelings of entrapment?


Hey, in all honesty that is not what I wanted, and it was totally a surprise. I guess my see/hear/speak no evil analogy was a bit too much, and I'm really sorry for that -- but I'll stand by my point*.

Maybe I should clarify more my use of "you" (someone specific) vs. "you" (the generalized reader) vs. "you" (a hypothesized person) when I write...I am thinking DM took all those "you"'s to mean him, and thus that I was mounting a personal attack, which I was not.

* that it is dismissive to say "I have no problem with the site, therefore only a crazy or delusional person can".

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 22 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.